Tag Archives: POTUS

Politics

Canada Should Embrace Trump Presidency Opportunities

Leave a comment

From: Chris Christie
To: Nervous Canadians 
Date: November 6, 2024 
Re: Canada Should Embrace the Opportunities of a Second Trump Presidency

A second Donald Trump presidency, if approached strategically, offers Canada more opportunities than risks.

Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric is often erratic, of that there is no doubt. And I, as you might have heard, am not a Donald Trump advocate.

But what happens in governance under Trump is a far cry from his provocative online posts or bombastic speeches, as I argued in the latest C.D. Howe Institute Regent Debate. His track record speaks for itself, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Canada has already benefitted from Trump-era policies.

Let’s take the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement – CUSMA in the Canadian rendering – as a prime example. Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA wasn’t just about putting “America first.” It was about reshaping trade relationships in North America to benefit all three countries. The agreement secured economic ties between the US, Canada, and Mexico in a way that ensures long-term growth for all parties involved.

Trump views that agreement as one of his crowning achievements, and rest assured, it’s not going anywhere. It is a durable platform for growth in North American trade.

Looking forward, the question isn’t whether Trump is unpredictable. It’s whether Canada can recognize and leverage the opportunities his policies present.

With Trump re-elected, his administration will continue to focus on policies that drive economic growth – lower taxes, reduced regulations, and energy independence. A booming US economy means a stronger Canada, as our two economies are deeply intertwined. When one prospers, the other stands to benefit through increased trade and investment.

Trump’s approach to trade – especially tariffs – has often been misunderstood. Yes, his speech-making is aggressive. But we need to separate rhetoric from reality. Trump’s actual policies were more measured than many anticipated. And they will be again. 

The real adversary for Donald Trump is China, not Canada. If Trump tightens the screws on China’s unfair trade practices, it could create space for Canadian companies to flourish on a more level playing field, particularly in sectors like technology and intellectual property, where China has been a major violator.

Trump’s economic philosophy – focused on cutting taxes and regulations to unleash private-sector growth – should also serve as a wake-up call for Canada. Under Prime Minister Trudeau, Canada has taken a ruinous policy road, with higher taxes and more government intervention in business.

But what if Canada aligned itself more closely with the pro-growth policies Trump advocates? 

Imagine the potential for Canadian businesses if they operated in an environment with fewer barriers to growth. A thriving private sector in Canada would strengthen the economy and create more opportunities for collaboration and trade with the US.

I won’t pretend that a second term comes without challenges. But instead of focusing on the personality occupying the Oval Office, Canada should focus on how to navigate the opportunities presented by our shared future as neighbours and trade partners.

It’s time to stop seeing Trump as an unpredictable threat and start recognizing the potential opportunities his policies can bring. Canada stands to benefit if it plays its cards right. For the Silo, Chris Christie.

Chris Christie was the 55th Governor of New Jersey and a participant in the C.D. Howe Institute’s recent Regent Debate. Send comments to Chris via this link.

Politics

Report: Regulations on U.S. arms exports often skirted, rarely enforced

Leave a comment

SOMERVILLE, Mass.—While the United States likes to claim it has the gold standard of arms export control measures, in practice the measures offer few restrictions on U.S. presidents’ ability to ship arms wherever they like, according to a new report from the World Peace Foundation (WPF) at Tufts University’s The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECE) of 1976, as well as the United States’ international obligations, are meant to ensure decisions to export arms take into account the potential to escalate conflict or fall into the hands of U.S. enemies. The AECA sets up Congress as a check on presidential decisions.

“The potential for arms sales to exacerbate a conflict rarely stops a sale,” said report author Jennifer Erickson, associate professor of political science and international studies at Boston College. “When we do restrain exports, more often than not, political calculations are at work, rather than the legal checks and balances Congress put in place.”

Among the key findings of On the Front Lines: Conflict Zones and U.S. Arms Exports:

  • Conflict is not a consistent deterrent for U.S. arms exports. The United States usually prioritizes diplomatic and economic ties in export decision making—regardless of the conflict status of the recipient.
  • Presidents face few restrictions on using arms sales to meet policy goals. U.S. law sets an almost unreachable vote threshold for Congress to block or modify arms sales.
  • Even when the U.S. chooses not to supply weapons to conflict zones, it can and does use alternative means, such as common allies, to get arms to combatants.
  • There is no realistic way for the U.S. government to guarantee the weapons it sells are used only by the buyer, in ways that conform with U.S. interests. We cannot ensure weapons are only used defensively, for instance. And arms have staying power. Years after initial sales, they may be used instead for priorities the U.S. opposes.
  • Interpretation of regulations may become looser still as the U.S. enters a “New Cold War” with China or Russia.

In coming to these conclusions, the report examines U.S. arms sales, and restraint, connected to recent conflicts in Libya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The World Peace Foundation commissioned similar studies on arms sales by the governments of the United Kingdom and France.

These studies follow earlier research by the WPF on which nations send arms into conflict zones, available on the website, Who Arms War? 

“The United States has all the regulations and policy tools it needs to ensure we do not make already dangerous places even more deadly,” said Alex de Waal, World Peace Foundation executive director and research professor at The Fletcher School. “We have mechanisms that can minimize the risk of America arming deadly actors. What we don’t seem to have is the political will to actually use those mechanisms. On numerous occasions American arms have made the world a more dangerous place, including for Americans.”

ABOUT THE WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION

Established by the publisher Edwin Ginn in 1910, the World Peace Foundation aims to “educate the people of all nations to a full knowledge of the waste and destructiveness of war and of preparation for war, its evil effects on present social conditions and on the wellbeing of future generations, and to promote international justice and the brotherhood of man, and generally by every practical means to promote peace and goodwill among all mankind.”